Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cacti

  1. 7 minutes ago, NowThis said:

    Israelis in pre 1967 Israel, the Green Line. 

    Sure. O.k. I’ll amend my comment; does this sound fair?

    Quote

    It sounds like you’re saying that Palestinians killing Israelis or even Americans (their backers), is not an act of terrorism and therefore should not be condemned.

     

  2. 3 minutes ago, NowThis said:

    i personally wouldn't include Americans into the mix, but i know you want to drag that into the vortex with the usual faux Israeli-US patriotism tie-in.  

    You mentioned the ‘backers’ of Israel. If you weren’t referring to America, to whom were you referring?

  3. 28 minutes ago, NowThis said:

    Secondly, Arab 'terrorists' are those who kill occupiers and their backers. Once the occupation ends, then we can call them bad names, not now.  Just yesterday, a brave young man killed an Israeli soldier in the west bank by taking his gun and shooting him, killed a 47 year old settler who was a rabbi and then proceeded to shoot a few more occupiers.  This action cannot be condemned but should be supported by all those who are against military dictatorships.  Yet, we are on the wrong side of this ledger due to internal demographics. 

    It sounds like you’re saying that Palestinians killing Israelis or even Americans (their backers), is not an act of terrorism and therefore should not be condemned. Is that a fair reading?

  4. 5 hours ago, NowThis said:

    considering the NZ mosque massacre, Israeli Jewish supremacists have their own celebrity -- Baruch Goldstein who mowed down 29 Palestinians at a Hebron mosque 1994. 

    his gravesite in the West Bank is now a shrine for the settler crazies

    Even though Baruch Goldstein’s act of terrorism is celebrated by a small number of Jewish supremacists, the Israeli government condemned his murderous act, as did the vast majority of Israelis. According to Wiki, the Israeli government outlawed monuments to terrorists and they discourage those making pilgrimage to Goldstein's grave site.

    Contrast that with the Palestinian authorities purposefully naming public schools after terrorists, thereby giving them special status among the Palestinians. More than a dozen public schools are named in honor of Palestinians who murdered Israelis. The list includes—but is not limited to--Ali Hassan Salameh, Dalal Mughrabi, Abu Jihad, and Nash’at Abu Jabara.

    In Israel, a few crazies (your words), honor a murderer; in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian society in general has no reservations about honoring such criminals.

    • Like 2
  5. This site compares—by state—teacher salaries, public school expenditures, math and science achievement, and much more. Some of the most interesting stats: Texas ranks in the 2nd quartile for 4th and 8th grade math and science performance. Not bad when one considers Texas ranks in the 4th quartile for expenditures per pupil and in the 3rd quartile for teacher salaries.

  6. 2 hours ago, BillyBadAss said:

    "Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth

     

    1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

    Like climate change, racism and social injustice affect everyone negatively, even the perpetrators.

    I think that's probably why that language is included in the resolution. 

    The long list of “disproportionately affected” groups is intentional. It is so extensive that nearly everyone could claim that they are one of the aggrieved.  Sort of like a physic reading—nearly every person can say, “Hey, they’re talking about me”. And that’s exactly why that language is included in the resolution.

  7. 8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    Next time, before repeating what you heard on Fox News, fact check it first to make sure you're not getting played. It makes you look foolish otherwise.

    As the clip showed, Warren did indeed call out Maduro, so good for her. And thanks for the enlightenment. I’m sure we can agree that accurate information is always better than the alternative.

    What is not accurate, however, is your assumption that I get talking points from Fox. The one FNC program I used to watch was Special Report, and that was specifically for the commentary from Will and Krauthammer. And those two—especially since Trump was elected—were not exactly a gold mine from which to grab conservative talking points.

    1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

    he peddled his influence and did favors in quid pro quo deals. also, his wife was in on the graft.

    You say that as if it’s a given. Are accusations/charges proof enough for you?

  8. 1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    As soon as Trump "calls out" Putin, Kim, MBS, Erdogan, and Duterte. 

    Is whataboutism still accepted as a defense?

    Trump—with all the seemingly justified accusations of corruption directed at him—is hardly in a position to accuse any leader. He certainly isn’t going to point the ‘corruption’ finger at any of the leaders you mentioned, nor is he going to call out Netanyahu. But then again, I don’t recall him saying that we should “call it out wherever it occurs.”  Warren, on the other hand, said we should do just that. Fine. But why would she direct her corruption-threatens-democracy comments at Bibi (who is not a threat to Israeli democracy), while saying nothing about Maduro, or Duterte, or Erdogan (all of whom are a threat to local democracy)?

  9. 22 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    They (A&M) would have wiped the bdf in '12.  With jizzjar and Sherm's nfl o-line, they could have walked away with DKR scoreboard AND a league title.

     

    4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

    ...they would have lost multiple games in the Big 12.  

    Maybe so, but that’s not a given. It’s entirely possible to win the Big 12 with a combination of a great offense and a bad/terrible defense; after all, Baylor was co-champions in 2014 with a defense nationally ranked at 51st and OU won the conference in 2017 and 2018 despite a defense ranking of 67th and 114th, respectively.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  10. 8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    The comments are the best.

    Not too long ago, it was the left that criticized Will; now, most of the condemnation comes from the right. What his current-day critics don’t realize is that one can be to the left of Trump and still be a conservative, which George is.

  11. 3 hours ago, Bone3421 said:

    Im not saying he isnt the goat im saying its not a landslide and can still be discussed....especially if rams win imo

    I don’t think it diminishes Brady at all if the Patriots lose. If fact, it was his performance in a loss—the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles last year—that sealed the deal for me. Philadelphia had a stout defense, limiting opponents to 18 points and 227 yard per game, yet Brady put up 31 points and he passed for an astounding 505 yards—again, against a very good defense.

  12. 8 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    Damn space particles, you scary spooky.

    Was doing some light reading on Quantum Entanglement (Einstein's Spooky Action at a Distance) and it seems very likely that everything we think we know about causality is a gussied up version of control-- an illusion.

    Causality in a quantum world

    Quote

     

    A neatly aligned row of dominoes stands before you. Satisfyingly, you gently tap the first tile with your finger to topple it. The domino falls and crashes into its neighbor, which falls in the same way, and creates a ripple effect that continues until all the dominoes have toppled.

    Falling dominoes illustrate a deeply rooted concept of science and of everyday life: causation. Event B (the last domino falls) occurs because of event A (the first domino falls). B occurs only if A occurs, and the occurrence of A is independent of that of B.

    But that simple causal structure of everyday life can break down in the quantum realm. Recent research reveals that causal relationships can be placed in quantum superposition states in which A influences B and B influences A. In other words, one cannot say if the toppling of the last quantum domino is either the result of the first domino’s fall or its cause

     

     

  13. 1 hour ago, JimmyHoffa said:

    The 70% tax rate isn't as crazy as thinking it's even remotely possible to eliminate ALL fossil fuels in 12 years.

    So much this.

    In September 2017, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill called the OFF Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act), a bill that would require 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (and 80 percent by 2027), place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, ban the export of oil and gas, and also move our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy. It has subsequently been folded into the Green New Deal, championed by Cortez.

    Trump’s base has been criticized for believing anything he says, no matter how preposterous. And there’s good evidence for that; for example, not a small number of people believed Donald when he said that Mexico would fund building a wall on our Southern border. And that’s just one example; there are plenty of others.    

    But how can Gabbard—and more recently, Cortez, along with other Democrats—be taken seriously concerning energy matters when they make a claim that renewables can replace fossil fuels by 2035 (or even reduce our fossil dependence by 80 percent in 8 years)?

    What they propose is not possible, but that doesn't stop them from doing exactly what Trump does; that is, they’re making an appeal to a base of uncritical thinkers.

    • Like 1
  14. 58 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

    But I'm pretty tired of waking up every morning and wondering whether or not it's going to be legal to discriminate against me yet or not. 

    Out of curiosity, what is it about you specifically that causes this everyday apprehension? Gender? Race? Other? And what proposed or pending legislation causes this fear of legal discrimination?

  15. 3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    And I'm not trying to sell a "woe is us" -- really, I'm not. 

    You’ve previously said that our republic is already dead, and now you add the following comments. And your attitude isn’t “woe is us”?

    3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Economic collapse.  Another Great Depression...Serious civil unrest and violence.  And, of course, my dark horse -- a serious war, possibly involving a nuclear exchange.....we are never getting our position back before either our allies or enemies.  Our diminished power and influence will be permanent, and the ripples from that will run deep, and last a long time.

     

    3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    There is no reform.  There is no remission or dormancy of this disease.  You either eradicate it, or die from it.  Those are our choices.

     

  16. 52 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

    We are here because we, the voters, have for decades failed in our civic duty to stay engaged, to research, to vote, to participate in a meaningful way in our democracy.

     

    24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Shit, my mother told me in the late 1970s that the key to politics was getting the "stupid vote," as stupid people are the single biggest voting bloc. 

     

    24 minutes ago, ndawg said:

    There have always been lots of ignorant and uninformed people...We're always going to have ignorant and uninformed people. If the great experiment survives this, we can never let them become a unified voting block again.

    You guys are making a strong case as to why voter suppression is needed.

    • Fuck You 2
  17. 14 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    I feel like I wouldn’t have to explain this if I believed Trump supporters actually graduated college, but here we are

    There you (and your ‘Like’ partners) go again! You’re assuming that I’m a Trump supporter, all based on what you see as an erroneous assertion that Cortez, too, makes use of whataboutism (she does, but more about that later). But for now I’m more interested in the logic you used to determine that I support Trump. Talk me through it, if you will. And since you assume that I’m not too bright, please talk slow and don’t use big words.

    14 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    It’s not “whataboutism” if the very same politician is being criticized for an opposite opinion he held in the 90s.

    Again, you’re making an erroneous assumption—this time it is as to which twitter comment that I’m talking about. A few days ago, she said this:

    Quote

    Double standards are Paul Ryan being elected at 28 and immediately being given the benefit of his ill-considered policies considered genius; and me winning a primary at 28 to immediately be treated with suspicion & scrutinized, down to my clothing, of being a fraud.

    In effect, she’s saying that she was treated unfairly; that Ron Paul was given the benefit of the doubt, but she wasn’t.  In other words, what about Paul?

    Was she treated differently because of her gender? Probably. Because of her skin color? Again, probably. But the point is not that she’s right; the point is that she used whataboutism to make her case.

  18. 7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Holding anyone in opposition to Trumpism to standards that you’ve completely abandoned in support of your Orange god. Y’all are adorable, and oh so predictable.

    Pointing out that ‘whataboutism’ is not unique to Trump doesn’t indicate support for Donald nor is it an indication that any standards are being abandoned. Whataboutism is a comparison that is commonly used as a weak, but effective defense or distraction, and that’s exactly why Trump uses it often. But it is not hypocritical nor an abandonment of any principle to point out that Cortez and others—like you and me, for example—make frequent use of it.

    But the use of whataboutism isn’t in itself a bad thing, unless it is used solely to justify a dubious deed or position. Unfortunately, that’s the only way I’ve seen it used by politicians or by surly posters.  There is however a constructive use of whataboutism, and that is when it is used to cause one to reevaluate a hypocritical position.  Such an example can be found in John, chapter 8, verses 3-7, where Jesus used it effectively when he caused the Pharisees to silently admit their hypocrisy.

    tl;dr: I wish the word had never been coined.

  19. 1 hour ago, Sgt Hulk said:

    Goddamn I was hoping someone would wreck this piece of shit 

    I don’t know if Murray could have wrecked the system, but he could have—and still could—throw a wrench in the selection process. All he had to do is wait until O.U. was selected for the playoffs, and wait until he won the Heisman,  and then announce that he had decided to skip the game—for winter baseball or some such nonsense. Not only would O.U.’s chances of beating Alabama go from less-than-not good to no chance at all, but without the draw of Murry the TV ratings would hit an all-time low for a playoff game. Such an event would dominate college football talk for several months and just might lead to some changes...or not.

  20. 38 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    I get it. Young women terrify you...And luckily for you, they are nicer than men.

    Geez guy. Jimmyjaz says I’m pushing a stupid narrative; bad_teammate says I’m obsessed; Biff Tannen says something about fear (I’m assuming that was directed toward me); and you say I’m a shitbag. Just because you guys post on Surly doesn’t mean that you have to be surly at all times, under all conditions.

    And you really shouldn’t make the false assumption that I’m terrified of young women. I raised a daughter from the age of four through early adulthood—and I did so by myself due to some unfortunate circumstances. As a result I’m probably more familiar with the female demeanor than the average guy, and, despite being raised by a “shitbag”, she turned out to be a well-adjusted woman and a successful professional. As an aside, she is also quite liberal.

    Quote

    It is no coincidence that the biggest period of economic growth in world history occurred with a massive gender gap in favor of women.

    Well, since this world prosperity was due to a massive gender gap—and the gender gap is the direct result of 10s of millions of men killing themselves off—shouldn't the men get the majority of credit?

  21. 1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    ...Saying that a 28 year-old "represents the future" (and that first word is conveniently left out of your quote) of anything is not a controversial statement unless you're really trying to manufacture a controversy or don't understand how time works.

    I wasn’t questioning the accuracy or motives of Perez’s statement when he said “she represents the future of our party.” Whether he was referring to her age, her ideals, her ethnicity—or all of those—is not the point. The point is that she has far-left views and out of all the left, far-left politicians that won, he singled her out. She was specifically named as a representative of the party’s future and, as such, is going to be a focal point both for praise (see Surly) and criticism (somewhere not Surly).

    By calling national attention to Cortez, Perez gave the GOP the ideal political focal point.  `

    1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    "The future" isn't "the face" or "the leader".

    Thanks for the clarification. Now, was this clarification is response to something I said? If so, a quote would be helpful.

×
×
  • Create New...